Subject: [lisp] Update on moving LISP

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:33:38 -0400

So far the news is not encouraging for moving LISP away from the RRG.

Darrel and I are working on structuring the agenda to minimize impact
if people need to skip the Friday session in order to attend the RRG.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:51 -0400

Do we actually need two sessions if one of them is going to conflict  
with the RRG?  Or will we have enough people missing that it would be  
better to just have a single session?

Margaret

On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:01:00 -0700

My initial thoughts are that we will need the extra time to get
everything we'd like to do done.  We'll publish a draft agenda this week
to give people some information on which to base their attendance
choices.

-Darrel 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:38 AM
> To: Sam Hartman
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP
> 
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:01:21 -0400

>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Margaret> Do we actually need two sessions if one of them is going
    Margaret> to conflict with the RRG?  Or will we have enough people
    Margaret> missing that it would be better to just have a single
    Margaret> session?

I think that once Darrel sends out a draft agenda we can look at this
and examine in more detail.

One of the questions has to do with how much we value getting input on
things related to lisp that are not strictly within charter.  Darrel
convinced me that a number of these areas are valuable.  For example,
presentations on research results into lisp mapping scaling are not
within our charter, but it seems like they might well inform important
items within our charter.  Things like Lig are useful to think about
in terms of lisp debugging.

There's a bit more complexity when we get to things like the mobility
draft from last agenda.  We've reached a point where discussing it as
an item to adopt doesn't make sense.  However Darrel convinced me that
presentations like that make sense in terms of informing people about
how people might use LISP.

I do agree that there is a lot of variability in how WGs use time.
I'm not attached to a particular model.  If the WG wants to say
something like "using end of session time for some of these tasks is
OK, but overflowing is not," then that works for me.  AIf the WG wants
to say something broader than's great too.  Another factor to consider
is of course Jari's availability and preferences.

For now, Darrel and I are wanting to be relatively broad in what we
accept as informational topics in the interest of building a community
fostering discussion and establishing shared context about how LISP is
used.  However if after looking at the agenda, you think we got it
wrong, please let us know.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:01:16 +0200

Hi,

As you can remember from the discussion on the versioning, the plan  
were to submit an updated draft (by the cut off date on monday) and  
have a discussion at the meeting.

Since this topic is not urgent and in order to reduce the length of  
the meeting (avoiding if possible conflict with RRG), we can postpone  
the versioning discussion to the 77th IETF.

Hope this will ease the work of the chairs.

Luigi

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:27:58 -0400

I definitely think you should submit the updated draft and start a
discussion on the list.
We can take things from there and look at your item vs other items on the agenda.
Factor will include:
* What else we schedule
* How much response you get on the list
* Comments from participants.
* Your input

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:45:28 +0100

Thanks Sam,

I will follow the steps you suggest, but not for Hiroshima. I think  
there is very little time.

Ciao

Luigi